Forum - View topicANNCast - This One's About Reviews!
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Lyzl
 Posts: 24 |
|
||
|
Great point pparker, wish I had mentioned it myself. A few years back I encountered my first film "critique" and was amazed at how different it was than a review. Technical details become much more important, and spoilers become non-issue.
Reviews, while still needing to be informative and fair, are meant as a way for the reader/viewer/listener to better understand if they should look into the series. It is not meant to point out every technical detail and plot hole. It's an interesting balance between the two sides: purely subjective "did I like it"? vs. purely analytical "what is it's merits/mistakes"? |
|||
|
|||
Agent355
 Posts: 5113 Location: Crackberry in hand, thumbs at the ready... |
|
||
|
This episode, and the board posts have me thinking critically about critique. I really do take reviews into account when deciding what to watch and read. The person who introduced me to anime (very frusteratingly) claims to no longer care about the fandom at all, and very few of my friends know what anime or manga is.
I am usually a bit too critical of what I watch or read myself. I'm so used to watching things despite known flaws and feeling pretty guilty afterwards (I *should not* have stayed up until the wee hours of the morning to watch "Voyager" in high school after I "discovered" Star Trek), so reading critical reviews about the potential literary and artistic value in my current entertainment genres of choice keeps up the illusion that I can choose wisely and be all the smarter for it. It also reinforces the belief that there are intelligent, well-educated adults out there who love comics & cartoons as much as I do, and that there is a very real value to be gained from them (as well as some things as dumb, but as fun, as a cheesy episode of Voyager. Like that one where B'Ellana Torres...whatever...  )
Whenever someone claims "it gets better!" I give them the benefit of the doubt. Did y'know that Seinfeld and The Simpsons (and, IIRC, The X-Files) were nearly cancelled at the start of there runs? There is something to be said about plots, characters and art that improves and becomes culturally significant as it goes along. Plus, there is nothing wrong with picking and choosing the most entertaining arcs in something you like but don't follow religiously. 
|
|||
|
|||
ikillchicken
 Posts: 7272 Location: Vancouver |
|
||
Hang on. First of, I do hope you're not suggesting that there is some kind of correlation between shows being good and shows not getting canceled because that would be absurd. 
Also though, it's not really fair to compare a serial format show like a sit com with a show with an overarching continuity. If for instance you think the first couple seasons of Seinfeld are bad, then just don't watch em and start with season 3 instead. There's no reason to slog through the initial episodes to get to the good ones. |
|||
|
|||
|
Agent355
Posts: 5113 Location: Crackberry in hand, thumbs at the ready... |
|
||
|
Both good points. An anime with an overarching plot that was fully formed ahead of time is not simular to a make-up-as-it-goes along sitcom. The X-Files is a better example, since it took a while before the plot and characters were 'set' right and then gained a fanbase. It's like a manga (or anime based on a manga) that takes a couple volumes for the plot to kick in. Especially if the mangaka is new.
|
|||
|
|||
writerpatrick
 Posts: 672 Location: Canada |
|
||
|
I find the worst reviewers are those who give away too much information about the show or movie, including giving away the ending! A reviewer must be careful of spoilers.
This often happens because a reviewer will give too much of a plot summary. The best summaries focus on the first five or ten minutes of a show. They talk about the general elements of the show and the basic motivations of the main characters. For instance, In Dragonball (the anime), Goku is an orphaned boy with a monkey tail. He meets a girl called Bulma who is on a quest to find seven magic orbs called Dragonballs which can grant her wish. Bulma discovers Goku has a Dragonball, leading to Goku and Bulma joining up in their quest to find the other Dragonballs. Note how I don't refer to Goku being an alien or his ability to power up. The review reader doesn't need to know those things right away. And I don't talk about the dragon appearing towards the end of the series, nor that Bulma never gets her wish. Those are things the reader just doesn't need to know yet. What the reader wants is to know if they're even going to have an interest in the show in the first place, but they don't want spoilers. |
|||
|
|||
|
HellKorn
Posts: 1669 Location: Columbus, OH |
|
||
|
|||
|
|||
pparker
 Posts: 1185 Location: Florida |
|
||
Someone knowledgeable in film criticism and with broad experience in the medium or genre should be able to provide better reviews, as long as they don't confuse their purposes and can entertain an audience. (I'm avoiding Justin's review until I see the show, because if it's that good, I don't want to be spoiled at all. I've recently mentioned the quality of his reviews.) Review and critical analysis are distinct forms with different purposes. A review should be a few paragraphs at most for providing just enough information to help someone decide whether to invest their time and money watching a show, whereas a thorough critique (in this context) would fill anywhere from 5 to 20 pages and significantly increase one's understanding of a work they've already seen. A reviewer primarily delivers a subjective opinion after one viewing, its value being in the degree of alignment between the reviewer's and the reader's personal preferences. A trusted friend may not know much about narrative, characters, editing or whatever, but their taste in entertainment matches mine. A critical analysis to be worthwhile needs to fully support its viewpoint with reference to film history, techniques of filmmaking and storytelling, detailed comparative examples and such in an attempt to determine some relatively objective "value" or relevance of a work of art. I expect to learn something about filmmaking itself or gain some social insight from it. Again, don't take those as absolutes in my mind, but as extremes of the scale. Lyzl and writerpatrick mentioned spoilers, for instance. A reviewer who reveals specific plot points or the best scenes, or telegraphs the ending, is doing a disservice to their target audience. Whereas, a thorough critique withholds nothing relevant to the analysis from either the show or any others used in comparison. They are just different beasts in their pure forms. |
|||
|
|||
|
HellKorn
Posts: 1669 Location: Columbus, OH |
|
||
|
Don't think we actually disagree on this!
While shared tastes with a reviewer/friend/whoever is as about helpful as recommendations can be, it's still far from an absolute guarantee. This can perhaps be lessened by the reviewer should they actually consider the specific elements that would appeal most strongly to people. Generalities only go so far and can miss the actual presentation and content of the title, as do vague comparisons (people thinking that because I love Lain and Texhnolyze, that I'd like Boogiepop Phantom, Gilgamesh, or Ergo Proxy, for instance), so imbuing critical assessments of the work while providing a satisfying review of it (without spoilers!) provides the best of both worlds. |
|||
|
|||
|
pparker
Posts: 1185 Location: Florida |
|
||
Oh, based on our history, I would never presume such!! 
If we don't agree, it's because your approach to the material and to criticism/review differs from mine, not because the definitions of the terms vary. I'm not looking for artistic greatness in my entertainment. If it happens, that's fantastic. Would love to add more masterpieces to my collection. But that evaluation comes after I've watched it, not before. Learned critique in a review won't affect much my decision to watch the show since enjoyment is my initial purpose and in that my tastes are purely personal and subjective. I can be influenced by a large majority of "critical" reviewers, or the masses or awards judges, saying a show is great. That group agreement doesn't change the odds that it actually is or isn't great, which don't vary much over time. That percentage of agreement can only be trusted to measure popularity, whether amongst the public or the reviewers. Just for instance, most critics in mass media are liberals, therefore statistically more likely to applaud shows that validate liberal viewpoints (all critics being human). I could care less, but it skews the supposedly more "analytical" and thus objective recommendations. True critical analysis, which is by definition more rigorous, is less likely to include such biases. I hesitate to mention because I sound jaded, but keep in mind that I am older and have been a film buff (not an expert) for many, many years. It's going to be very hard to surprise me with "new" psychological, philosophical, political, social or religious content, or narrative, character or filmic technique. But I'm not jaded, because I can get truly enthusiastic about a story that uniquely combines familiar and hopefully unfamiliar elements in a provocative way. Especially now though, I watch film for entertainment first, enlightenment second, because it's more about the fun .
|
|||
|
|||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group